Packer v. Packer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Packer v. Packer

225 A.D.2d 314, 639 N.Y.2d 9, 639 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2017

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 314 (Packer v. Packer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Packer v. Packer, 225 A.D.2d 314, 639 N.Y.2d 9, 639 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs allegations that defendant, among other things, prevented her from obtaining independent legal counsel, selected her attorney and then attended the two cursory meetings between her and counsel, and did not reveal the extent of his assets, and that no negotiations between the parties were ever conducted and that she had no input into the document that was presented for her signature, are sufficient to state causes of action for rescission or reformation on the grounds of unconscionability, fraud and duress (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72-73; cf., McFarland v McFarland, 70 NY2d 916; Manes v Manes, 215 AD2d 455). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. [315]*315Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiffs allegations that defendant, among other things, prevented her from obtaining independent legal counsel, selected her attorney and then attended the two cursory meetings between her and counsel, and did not reveal the extent of his assets, and that no negotiations between the parties were ever conducted and that she had no input into the document that was presented for her signature, are sufficient to state causes of action for rescission or reformation on the grounds of unconscionability, fraud and duress (see, Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72-73; cf., McFarland v McFarland, 70 NY2d 916; Manes v Manes, 215 AD2d 455). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. [315]*315Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 314, 639 N.Y.2d 9, 639 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/packer-v-packer-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack